Trump officials are trying to yank this animal's last shot at survival

is an environmental correspondent at Vox, covering biodiversity loss and climate change. Before joining Vox, he was a senior energy reporter at Business Insider. Benji previously worked as a wildlife researcher.
The bird above is not your typical charismatic species. It's no bald eagle, no peregrine falcon.
It's a groundbird known as the lesser prairie-chicken that lives in the southern Great Plains. It's not even the greater prairie-chicken, another, related avian species, that's a bit larger.
Today, however, this bird is very much worth paying attention to.
In 2023, lesser prairie-chickens — which are actually fascinating birds, not least for their ridiculous mating rituals — were granted protection under the Endangered Species Act, the country's strongest wildlife law. Scientists say this protection is justified: The population of lesser prairie-chickens has crashed since the last century from hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of birds to roughly 30,000 today.
Now the Trump administration is trying to axe those extinction-thwarting protections. In a motion filed earlier this month in a Texas court, the administration argued that federal officials made an error when listing prairie-chickens under the Endangered Species Act. The listing — which makes it illegal to kill or harm the birds, with a number of exceptions — should be tossed out, the administration said.
The move isn't totally unexpected. Prairie-chickens overlap in some areas with oil and gas drilling. And President Donald Trump has signaled that he will prioritize drilling over environmental safeguards.
Yet it reveals that his administration will take extreme steps to undo wildlife protections if they stand in the way of his agenda. If his administration is successful in delisting the bird, it will signal that no endangered species is safe — especially those, like these chickens, that happen to live where fossil fuels are buried.
The dance of the prairie-chicken
Male lesser prairie-chickens are extremely extra.
Each spring, they come together in breeding grounds called leks to dance for females, hoping to attract them as mates. They inflate large sacs on their neck, flare yellow combs above their eyes, and raise wing-like feathers behind their heads. Then they stomp their feet and start booming, producing a noise that sounds like sped-up yodeling. (These are not to be confused with the greater sage-grouse, a bird in the same family that has a similarly spectacular display.)
The Great Plains were once filled with these unusual dancing birds, which play important roles in grassland ecosystems: They provide food for raptors, spread seeds, and control insects. But in the last few centuries, prairie-chickens lost most of their habitat — largely to the expansion of oil and gas, commercial farming, housing developments, and, more recently, wind energy. Scientists estimate that the range of lesser prairie-chickens has shrunk by 83 percent to 90 percent since European settlement.
'Grasslands are the most threatened ecosystem on the continent and in the world, and nowhere more so than in the southwestern Great Plains,' said Ted Koch, executive director of the North American Grouse Partnership, a bird conservation group.
Facing extinction as a result of powerful industries, the prairie-chicken has been caught up in a game of political ping pong.
The government first granted them federal protection in 2014. Then, in response to a lawsuit filed by an oil-industry trade group and several counties in New Mexico, the Texas court tossed out the listing in 2015. They were officially delisted in 2016. The suit argued that in granting federal protections the government didn't adequately consider existing voluntary efforts, such as habitat conservation, to conserve the birds.
Shortly after, the Interior Department — the government agency that oversees endangered species listings — reevaluated the bird and once again determined, under the Biden administration, that it is at risk of extinction, even with those voluntary efforts in place. In 2023, Interior added the chickens back on the endangered species list.
That brings us to the present day, when these forsaken birds could once again lose protection.
Trump moves to strip endangered species protections on a technicality
The Trump administration is arguing that the Interior Department made a mistake when it recently listed the birds again.
It comes down to a somewhat wonky technicality. Briefly, the Endangered Species Act allows the government to grant formal protection to a species or to a population of a species — if those populations are important on their own, and at risk. That's what the Biden administration did: It determined that there were two distinct populations of lesser-prairie chickens and it granted each of them slightly different protections. One of the populations is in the northern end of the birds' range, including Oklahoma and Kansas, and the other is in the southern reaches of its range, in Texas and New Mexico.
Under the Trump administration, Interior claims that it didn't provide enough information to show that the two bird populations are distinct. That's reason enough to delist the birds, the administration argues, while it reviews their status over the next year. If the species is delisted — even temporarily — the government would be able to permit activities, such as energy projects, even if they might harm the bird and the endangered grasslands it's found in.
Male lesser prairie-chickens fight for territory at a lek in Edwards County, Kansas. Michael Pearce/Wichita Eagle/Tribune News Service via Getty Images
Avian experts, meanwhile, say the reasoning behind the original listing — which was the result of months of work and more than 30,000 public comments — is sound, and these birds are very clearly in trouble. 'The North American Grouse Partnership agrees completely that listing of chickens is warranted,' Koch said.
The move to delist prairie-chickens appears to be an effort by the Trump administration to skirt wildlife regulations that some perceive to stand in the way of the oil industry, said Jonathan Hayes, executive director of Audubon Southwest, a regional office of the National Audubon Society, a large environmental nonprofit.
'Whether it's true or not, this chicken symbolizes a challenge, or an impediment, to oil and gas development for industry,' Hayes told Vox. 'We would expect this administration to push back on regulations that may or may not impact oil and gas. That's what it feels like is happening here.'
In a statement to Vox, the Interior Department said it has an 'unwavering commitment to conserving and managing the nation's natural and cultural resources…and overseeing public lands and waters for the benefit of all Americans, while prioritizing fiscal responsibility for the American people.'
The new administration can quibble with the technical points of the listing, Koch said, but that will do nothing to change the reality: The bird is at risk of extinction and needs to be protected.
'Whether somebody wants to engage in debate on technicalities is up to them, but simply and fundamentally lesser prairie-chickens are threatened with extinction,' Koch said. 'Delisting lesser prairie chickens on a technicality is going to do nothing to address the underlying threat to these ecosystems.'
The future for threatened species in the US
There's no guarantee that prairie-chickens will lose protection.
The Trump administration's motion to delist the birds came in response to a pair of lawsuits filed by both the state of Texas and groups representing the oil and livestock industries. The suits allege that the Interior Department made a mistake in splitting the birds into two distinct populations and failed to follow the best available information. (Interior's spokesperson told Vox they will not comment on ongoing litigation.)
Before Trump took office, the government was planning to defend its decision to protect the birds — and to split them up — in court, in response to those lawsuits. Now it's reversing course and agreeing with Texas and the oil industry to toss out the listing.
It's possible that the judge overseeing this case could agree to remove protections, said Jason Rylander, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. In that case, groups like his would try to appeal to block the delisting.
The court could also tell the government to review the bird's status while keeping existing protections in place, Rylander says.
What's key here is that the decision to list lesser prairie-chickens involved a formal rulemaking process with public input. It's not clear that the government can simply reverse its decision and yank federal protections without going through that process again.
'The government can't act in a capricious way,' Hayes of Audubon said. 'It can't just blow with the wind, and that's exactly what it did here. They just changed their minds when the administration changed. I'm not sure how they will legally defend their complete 180.'
But no matter how this plays out, this effort to delist lesser prairie-chickens puts other threatened species in an even more precarious spot, especially those that live in regions with oil and gas.
One example is the endangered dunes sagebrush lizard. It's a small, scaly reptile that lives in the Permian Basin of Texas, the largest oil-producing region in the country, and nowhere else on Earth.
The state of Texas similarly sued the government after it listed the dunes sagebrush lizard as endangered last year. The suit — which asks the court to vacate the endangered listing — alleges, among other things, that the government didn't rely on the best available data to evaluate the lizard's extinction risk. That case is still pending, though environmental advocates fear that the Trump administration could side with Texas and claim it made a mistake when listing the lizard.
Then there's the beloved monarch butterfly.
Following decades of population decline, the government proposed federal protections for the iconic insect late last year. Monarch habitat similarly overlaps with the oil and gas industry, as well as commercial farmland. Fossil-fuel groups have already asked the Trump administration to reconsider the listing.
'As the Trump administration is in power, we can expect that endangered species protections are going to be under attack,' Rylander said. 'I think there's a chance we can stop this in court,' he said of efforts to delist the prairie-chicken, 'but I think if we don't, we will see more efforts to remand and vacate listings that they [the Trump administration] don't want to have in place anymore.'
It's important to remember that wildlife protections benefit people, Koch said. And prairie-chickens are a good example. Most of the remaining birds live on sustainably managed, private ranchlands in the Great Plains, he said. Those lands — those working grassland ecosystems — are under threat from energy development and other industries that are more profitable.
Saving prairie chickens means saving those lands. And saving those lands benefits the ranchers that live on them, he said.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Politico

15 minutes ago

• Politico

Trump threatens more strikes against Iran if it doesn't negotiate a deal

President Donald Trump declared the U.S. bombing of Iran's three major nuclear facilities to have been 'a spectacular military success' during a Saturday night address to the nation, and left the door open to engaging in more strikes. 'Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated,' Trump said, and warned that the U.S. could still attack other, less significant targets in Iran if its leaders don't stand down. 'Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace,' he said. 'If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.' Standing in the White House Cross Hall to deliver a speech that lasted less than four minutes, Trump stopped short of declaring the U.S. to be at war with Iran, but his words made clear that he was willing to enter a deeper, wider conflict. In fact, the president seemed intent on trying to further intimidate Iran, a dramatic shift from just a few weeks ago, when Trump sounded confident that he was close to a diplomatic agreement with Tehran to further constrain its nuclear program. Trump asserted Saturday that there are 'many targets left' in Iran for U.S. forces to attack and vowed to go after them in short order if Iran didn't relent. 'There will be either peace or there will be tragedy for Iran far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days,' he said. The remarks came a couple hours after the president's TruthSocial post announcing that the U.S. had struck three nuclear sites inside Iran. For several days, Trump had been dangling the threat of the U.S. assisting Israel's military, which does not have the kind of 'bunker-buster' bombs that were deployed in the operation Saturday night, to take out Iran's nuclear facilities once and for all — a consequence, he suggested, for Tehran's failure to reach a deal to curb its nuclear program. But the news that U.S. forces had carried out the strikes still came as a surprise, given the White House's statement on Thursday that Trump might take as long as two weeks to decide whether to take military action. With Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth standing behind him, Trump offered his congratulations to the military generals who helped plan the attack, the warfighters who carried it out and to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with whom he said he 'worked as a team.' Trump made no effort to justify his decision to a MAGA base that has largely opposed intervening in foreign wars. Nor did he address his decision to act without consulting Congress, a move, many Democrats on Capitol Hill have pointed out, that is unconstitutional. Rather, he announced that the Pentagon would hold a press conference at 8 a.m. on Sunday before ending his remarks with a word of appreciation. 'I want to just thank everybody. And in particular God, I want to just say, we love you, God, and we love our great military.'

San Francisco Chronicle​

18 minutes ago

• San Francisco Chronicle​

Trump's move against Iran may draw more criticism from MAGA's anti-interventionists

President Donald Trump's decision to strike three nuclear sites in Iran could deepen a divide among some of the Republican's supporters, including high-profile backers who had said any such move would run counter to the anti-interventionism he promised to deliver. Notably though, immediately following Trump's Saturday announcement of the strike, some of those who had publicly spoken out against U.S. involvement voiced their support. The lead-up to the move against Iranian nuclear sites had exposed fissures within Trump's 'Make American Great Again' base as some of that movement's most vocal leaders, with large followings of their own, expressed deep concern about the prospect of U.S. involvement in the Israel-Iran war. With the president barred from seeking a third term, what remains unknown is how long-lasting the schism could be for Trump and his current priorities, as well as the overall future of his 'America First' movement. Among the surrogates who spoke out against American involvement were former senior adviser Steve Bannon, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., commentator Tucker Carlson and Charlie Kirk, the founder of the conservative youth organization Turning Point. Part of their consternation was rooted in Trump's own vocalized antipathy for what he and others have termed the 'forever wars' fomented in previous administrations. As the possibility of military action neared, some of those voices tamped down their rhetoric. According to Trump, Carlson even called to 'apologize.' Steve Bannon On Wednesday, Bannon, one of top advisers in Trump's 2016 campaign, told an audience in Washington that bitter feelings over Iraq were a driving force for Trump's first presidential candidacy and the MAGA movement. "One of the core tenets is no forever wars,' Bannon said. But the longtime Trump ally, who served a four-month sentence for defying a subpoena in the congressional investigation into the U.S. Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021, went on to suggest that Trump will maintain loyalty from his base no matter what. On Wednesday, Bannon acknowledged that while he and others will argue against military intervention until the end, 'the MAGA movement will back Trump.' Ultimately, Bannon said that Trump would have to make the case to the American people if he wanted to get involved in Iran. 'We don't like it. Maybe we hate it,' Bannon said, predicting what the MAGA response would be. 'But, you know, we'll get on board.' Tucker Carlson The commentator's rhetoric toward Trump was increasingly critical. Carlson, who headlined large rallies with the Republican during the 2024 campaign, earlier this month suggested that the president's posture was breaking his pledge to keep the U.S. out of new foreign entanglements. Trump clapped back at Carlson on social media, calling him 'kooky.' During an event at the White House on Wednesday, Trump said that Carlson had 'called and apologized' for calling him out. Trump said Carlson 'is a nice guy.' Carlson's conversation with Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, that day laid bare the divides among many Republicans. The two sparred for two hours over a variety of issues, primarily about possible U.S. involvement in Iran. Carlson accused Cruz of placing too much emphasis on protecting Israel in his foreign policy worldview. 'You don't know anything about Iran,' Carlson said to Cruz, after the senator said he didn't know Iran's population or its ethnic composition. 'You're a senator who's calling for the overthrow of a government, and you don't know anything about the country.' Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene The Georgia Republican, who wore the signature red MAGA cap for Democratic President Joe Biden's State of the Union address in 2024, publicly sided with Carlson, criticizing Trump for deriding 'one of my favorite people.' Saying the former Fox News commentator 'unapologetically believes the same things I do,' Greene wrote on X this past week that those beliefs include that 'foreign wars/intervention/regime change put America last, kill innocent people, are making us broke, and will ultimately lead to our destruction.' 'That's not kooky,' Greene added, using the same word Trump used to describe Carlson. 'That's what millions of Americans voted for. It's what we believe is America First.' About an hour before Trump's announcement, Greene posted on X that, 'Every time America is on the verge of greatness, we get involved in another foreign war.' 'This is not our fight,' she added. 'Peace is the answer.' In another post following Trump's announcement, Greene urged, 'Let us all join together and pray for peace." Alex Jones The far-right conspiracy theorist and Infowars host posted on social media earlier in the week a side-by-side of Trump's official presidential headshot and an artificial intelligence-generated composite of Trump and former Republican President George W. Bush. Trump and many of his allies have long disparaged Bush for involving the United States in the 'forever wars' in Iraq and Afghanistan. Writing 'What you voted for' above Trump's image and 'What you got' above the composite, Jones added: 'I hope this is not the case…' Charlie Kirk Kirk is among those who seemed to have made a quick about-face. About an hour after Trump's announcement, Kirk posted a series of messages on social media supportive of Trump, saying Iran had given the president 'no choice.' Kirk praised Trump for acting 'with prudence and decisiveness" and 'for the betterment of humanity.' Kirk also reposted a 2011 tweet in which Trump had written that 'Iran's quest for nuclear weapons is a major threat to our nation's national security interests. We can't allow Iran to go nuclear.' 'When Trump speaks, you should listen,' Kirk added. It was a different tone from the start of the week, when Kirk said in a Fox News interview that 'this is the moment that President Trump was elected for.' But he had warned of a potential MAGA divide over Iran. Days later, Kirk said that 'Trump voters, especially young people, supported President Trump because he was the first president in my lifetime to not start a new war.' He also wrote that 'there is historically little support for America to be actively engaged in yet another offensive war in the Middle East. We must work for and pray for peace.'

CNBC

23 minutes ago

• CNBC

World leaders react after Trump says U.S. has bombed 3 nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordo

World leaders reacted to President Donald Trump's announcement Saturday that the U.S. had carried out a "very successful attack" on three nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordo."This is an HISTORIC MOMENT FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ISRAEL, AND THE WORLD. IRAN MUST NOW AGREE TO END THIS WAR," Trump posted on Truth Social. Here's how world leaders reacted after the attack. Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said "Trump's bold decision will change history. Speaking minutes after the attack, Netanyahu said, "President Trump and I often say: 'Peace through strength.' First comes strength, then comes peace. And tonight, Donald Trump and the United States acted with a lot of strength," Meanwhile, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on Saturday warned that the U.S. strikes on Iran represent a dangerous escalation in an already volatile region, posing a serious threat to global peace and security. "There is a growing risk that this conflict could rapidly get out of control – with catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region, and the world," Guterres said in a statement as reported by Reuters. "At this perilous hour, it is critical to avoid a spiral of chaos. There is no military solution. The only path forward is diplomacy. The only hope is peace," he said. Reactions across the globe are slowly coming in as leaders weigh the impact of the attack. According to Reuters, South Korea's presidential office is set to host an emergency meeting to discuss the attack.